On Nov 27, 2007 11:23 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 12:38 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Wait a minute; what "kangaroo court"? Durova is an individual admin, and Matthew and Guy have both said clearly and unequivocally that she didn't ask *any* list for permission to block, or, I believe, even mention that she was planning to do so.
Read the email. It's obvious she's accusing !! of blockable offenses-- being a WR Sockpuppet.
To you, perhaps.
Jay, if it doesn't say that to you, your judgment is frankly as questionable as Durova's. The email, IIRC from when it was posted, specifically indicated that !! was trolling, that !! waded into some drama because he couldn't control himself, and so on.
On a list of "people who already believe in bigfoot"-- seems to fly afoul of CANVASSing.
Are you suggesting that, like bigfoot, the claims that Wikipedians have been harassed by WR members are mythical?
Jay, read the thread, and the workshop on RfAr. 'Believing in Bigfoot' here and there doesn't mean 'believing in harassment', it means 'believing that a dozen banned users will be successful in subverting the entire project because of their brilliance and the fact that most editors do not believe in constant vigilance.'
Then, about five individuals engaged in "in depth" discussion with her, and "enthusiastically endorsed" the block. This isn't a fairy tale-- this is Durova's own words.
And Guy and Matthew have both stated that Durova did not propose on either list that anyone be blocked, so, if there was any "enthusiastic endorsing" of a block, it couldn't have been there. Relata Refero has suggested that there may be some third, truly secret off-Wikia mailing list that is the one co-ordinating blocks. If such a thing exists, which I highly doubt, do you imagine that Wikipedia can do anything about it?
I didn't suggest it. I pointed out that if Durova says she got enthusiastic support following her circulation of the evidence, and Matthew and Guy say there was no support for a block, or even a proposal on Wikia, the only way to reconcile those statements is to assume some other form of contact. And the only thing Wikipedia can do about it is to say that it is a bad thing to not run your ideas by genuine examination, from people who have different perspectives from you. I am yet to see anyone on this thread arguing for that.
Do the people who endorsed her block need to have their use of tools monitored a little more closely by the community?? The answer we're getting right now is not "yes" or "no" but "That's none of Arbcom's business "
Actually, the answer you're getting right now is "she didn't even propose a block, so no-one could have endorsed it". For some reason, though, you don't seem to be hearing that.
Jay, nobody objected to her conclusions in the email she sent. That is worrying enough. She herself has said that her block met with agreement, so someone endorsed it. They do not bear the responsibility for it, but their judgment is questionable too.
It's just not acceptable. It's a RECIPE for schism, paranoia and drama.
I think a much stronger case can be made that your own actions and posts here are the recipe for that.
Make it, then. You will fail: because if Alec didn't bring it up, someone else would have. This isn't about individuals, its about processes.
RR